Still reeling from the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of
New London, property rights advocates are bracing themselves
for another betrayal of private property rights - this time from
the GOP-controlled Congress - according to The National Center
for Public Policy Research.

In its June 23rd decision,
the Court ruled as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissenting
opinion that, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit
of another private party... The beneficiaries are likely to be
those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the
political process, including large corporations..."

Business interests may again
benefit at the expense of small property owners through Endangered
Species Act (ESA) reform, if leaked draft language obtained by
The National Center from a journalist is any indication.

One of the purported provisions
calls for compensation when ESA regulations diminish the value
of a person's property - but only if it is devalued by at least
50 percent.

"There are a lot of folks
who have a problem with letting government take 49.9 percent
of their property - a civil right - before anybody cares,"
said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for
Public Policy Research. "Those with large landholdings may
be able to afford this, but the little guy just can't. If you're
a small property owner, I don't know how you can look at this
as anything but a betrayal."

It is doubtful that even this
modest level of compensation would end up in a final bill. Even
if it does, compensation may still be out of reach for many property
owners - including those whose property diminishes in value by
more than half -- because they simply can't afford the costs
of all the bureaucratic hoops they must jump through in order
to file a successful claim.

Another purported provision
would vastly expand the scope of the ESA to regulate so-called
"invasive species." If true, this would represent a
major assault on private property rights.

Invasive species are species
that have expanded beyond their normal distribution. Under this
definition, almost anything could qualify for regulation. Tall
fescue, for example, a grass commonly used by homeowners for
their lawns, could qualify.

Any regulation of invasive
species - never before regulated under the Endangered Species
Act - would be a step toward the government telling Americans
what they can use for their lawns, what flowers they can have
in their flowerbeds and what vegetables they can plant in their
gardens.

R.J. Smith, a noted conservation
expert, says this will extend the reach of the ESA to draconian
lengths, giving almost unlimited power to regulate land, since
almost all private and public land in America contains non-native
species.

Contrary to conventional wisdom,
businesses frequently advocate more regulation, rather than less.
Sometimes they do so to gain advantage over their competitors.
Sometimes they do so to eliminate uncertainty: If they have clearly
defined regulations for which they can calculate costs, they
can simply pass on those costs to their customers.

"It's clear why corporate
special interests like this provision. It permits them to better
calculate their costs of doing business. And once they do so,
they can simply build these costs into the price of their products,"
said David Ridenour. "Those of modest means would be the
biggest losers as they have to eat the entire costs themselves."

For more information, contact
Ryan Balis at (202) 543-4110 x19 or [email protected],
or visit the National Center's website at www.nationalcenter.org.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit
501(c)(3) communications and research foundation dedicated to
providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems.